LiveLawBiz RERA Monthly Digest: May, 2026
Shivani PS
2 Jun 2026 2:47 PM IST
Supreme Court
Case Title: VANDANA SABHARWAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).661/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 213
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a writ petition alleging that Rs. 13,833 crore out of Rs. 14,599 crore collected from homebuyers by the Jaypee Group was diverted through transfers to group entities and undervalued land transactions.
The matter came up before a bench comprising the Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice.
“Issue notice, returnable on 15.07.2026,” the court recorded.
Filed by a homebuyer in the 'KASABLANCA' project at Jaypee Wishtown in Noida, the petition states that despite paying for a residential unit more than a decade ago, the petitioner has received neither possession nor refund. The plea further states that the project's RERA registration expired in December 2021.
HIGH COURTS
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title : Advance India Projects Limited v. State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CWP-14732-2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 26
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to entertain a real estate developer's challenge to a Haryana RERA refund order, holding that a promoter/developer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy merely to avoid the pre-deposit requirement.
A Division Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri was hearing a petition filed by Advance India Projects Limited against a Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority order directing it to refund over ₹1.02 crore to two allottees in its “AIPL Joy Gallery” commercial project in Gurugram.
“Merely because filing of the appeal by petitioner would entail a pre-deposit of some amount cannot be a ground for the petitioner to bypass the alternate remedy, which is statutory as well as efficacious,” the Court observed.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Admire Infrazone Pvt. Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : MA No. 68 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 13
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a company that agrees to develop land, obtain statutory approvals, and secure RERA registration before selling plots could prima facie be treated as a promoter under the real estate law.
A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput dismissed an appeal filed by Admire Infrazone Pvt. Ltd. against a Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order remanding a plot buyer's complaint to RERA for fresh adjudication.
“Under the Act of 2016, word promoter has been very widely defined including a person who develops a land into a project whether or not the person also constructs structures on any of the plots and it further provides that any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale.,” the Court held.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: R. C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Sharad Maheshwari & Anr.
Case Number : RFA 37/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 510
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court decree directing R. C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. to refund ₹18 lakh to Sharad Maheshwari and Vandana Maheshwari. The court found that the developer had illegally cancelled their villa allotment and effectively coerced them into accepting a purported “full and final settlement.”
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the developer's appeal. She observed that settlements extracted without free consent cannot extinguish a buyer's claim.
“It is well-settled that a plea of full and final settlement, must be founded on free consent. Where the acceptance of a lesser amount occurs under protest or coercive circumstances, it does not constitute a binding accord and satisfaction and, consequently, does not extinguish the original claim.”, the court observed
“The Plaintiff, thus occupied a vulnerable position and was left with no viable alternative but to accept whatever amount was offered. The learned District Judge correctly observed that the Plaintiff, when pitted against a large developer with superior bargaining power, was effectively coerced into accepting the Rs. 44 lakhs offered by the Defendant,” the court added.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Haryana REAT
Case Title: M/s Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd. v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram
Case Number: Appeal No. 1226 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 34
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently upheld Haryana RERA's refusal to register Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd.'s multi-level parking-cum-commercial project. It held that the company was merely a licensee with no right to transfer any part of the property and therefore did not qualify as a promoter under the law.
A bench of Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan held that the company's role was limited to developing infrastructure for Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). It was only entitled to recover its investment through operation of the parking facility, licensing commercial spaces, and earning revenue through advertisements and hoardings.
“The appellant being concessionaire has no right to further transfer by sale, lease or otherwise any part of the property/commercial infrastructure.”, it ruled.
Haryana REAT Rejects DLF Challenge To Refund Order, Holds Pre-Deposit Mandatory For Promoter Appeals
Case Title : M/s DLF Limited v. Gautam Rana
Case Number: CM No. 943 of 2026 in/and Appeal No. 130 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 31
On 1 May, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) held that an appeal filed by promoters challenging a refund order under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 must necessarily be accompanied by the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5).
The Bench comprising Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan refused to entertain the appeal filed by DLF Limited against a refund order passed in favour of homebuyer Gautam Rana, holding that compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement is a threshold condition for maintainability. It held:
“An appeal, which is not accompanied with the pre-deposit, deserves outright dismissal. Challenge on the ground that the order is unsustainable, can only be considered if the appeal is found to be maintainable.”
Maharashtra REAT
Developers Need Not Refund GST, TDS, Stamp Duty While Refunding Flat Consideration: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Narendra Ramchand Ochani & Anr. v. Veena Realcon Private Ltd.
Case Number : Appeal No. AT006000000063823 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 30
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a developer cannot ordinarily be directed to refund GST, MVAT, TDS, stamp duty and registration charges paid by homebuyers to Government authorities.
The ruling came while the Tribunal was ordering refund in a delayed housing project dispute.
“We are of the view that the said taxes and duties were paid to the Government. The said amounts are not towards the consideration amount for the subject flat,” the tribunal said.
"With regard to TDS, the said amount is deposited by the allottee directly with the Government and the promoter receives the credit of their advance tax. However, promoter is not liable to refund the said amount because the TDS was submitted to the Income Tax Department, the promoter is not responsible for the refunding it to the allottee. An appropriate recourse is through the tax authority and the allottee can apply for it to the Income Tax Depaftment.” it added.
Maharashtra REAT Bars RERA Relief For Rehabilitation Flat Disputes In Redevelopment Projects
Case Title : Sudhir Vitthal Mulay v. Rui Universal Realties
Case Number : Appeal No. AT005000000174633 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 33
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 4 May held that existing housing society members cannot seek relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in disputes relating to rehabilitation flats allotted in redevelopment projects, as such disputes arise from the development agreement executed between the society and the developer.
Members Shriram R. Jagtap (J) and Dr. Rajagopal Devara (A) dismissed an appeal filed by Sudhir Vitthal Mulay against Rui Universal Realties and clarified that in redevelopment projects, RERA applies only to the sale component and not to rehabilitation flats allotted to existing society members. The Tribunal observed:
“Accordingly, the transactions and contractual obligations are directly governed by the said development agreement. Any dispute arising therefrom must be enforced either individually or through the Society, in accordance with the terms of said development agreement. The said development agreement cannot be enforced under the provisions of RERA Act, 2016.”
Tamil Nadu REAT
Case Title : M/s. Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasa Siva Naga Ganesh Kumar
Case Number: Appeal No.25 of 2026 and M.A. No.72 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 29
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld an order appointing an independent engineer to inspect alleged defects and irregularities in a villa project developed by Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd., saying the exercise would help ascertain the alleged irregularities and defects and would not prejudice the developer.
"Further, appointing an independent Engineer will not cause prejudice to the appellant/promoter in anyway. In fact, it will be helpful, not only to the respondent/complainant, but also to the appellant/promoter to find out the irregularities, if any and to rectify the defects found by the independent Engineer.” the Tribunal said.
Dismissing the developer's appeal, Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy, Judicial Member K. Babu and Administrative Member Selvi Apoorva held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) had rightly directed inspection of Villa No.55B in the “Malles Akankssha” project.
Telangana REAT
Case Title: Mehta & Modi Realty Kowkur LLP v. Mrs. Deepa Suraj Premi & Anr.
Case Number: T.A. No.45 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 32
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld a nearly ₹11.00 lakh penalty against developer Mehta & Modi Realty Kowkur LLP for executing a sale agreement with homebuyers that was materially different from the standard agreement it had uploaded before the Telangana RERA at the time of project registration.
“The act of the appellant/promoter in changing the format and executing a completely different agreement of sale, even though some terms may be similar, is impermissible. Therefore, we are of the view that the conduct of the appellant not only contravenes Rule 38 of the Rules but also amounts to furnishing false information and deliberate suppression of material facts and as such the learned Regulatory Authority has rightly held that the appellant has violated Rule 38 of the Rules by not adhering to the format of the agreement for sale as stipulated in the annexure to the said Rule and imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 60 of the Act.”, the tribunal held.
Karnataka REAT
Market Value Rise, Hypothetical Future Profits Not Enough For RERA Compensation: Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Ravi Shankar & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 125/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 34
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (KREAT) has dismissed an appeal by two Bengaluru homebuyers seeking enhanced compensation over delayed possession of flats in Vaishnavi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.'s “Vaishnavi Mandara” project, upholding a Karnataka RERA order that awarded them ₹2 lakh for mental agony and ₹7,000 in litigation costs.
The tribunal bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N said compensation claims under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act must be supported by cogent evidence.
“Mere escalation in market value, generalised hardship or hypothetical future profits ordinarily may not, by themselves constitute a valid claim for compensation towards loss of opportunity under the Act.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Haryana RERA
Haryana RERA Awards ₹26.96 Lakh For Loss Of Appreciation Due To Delay In “The Heartsong” Project
Case Title: Mukesh Sharma vs Experion Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No. 2515-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 88
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 6 May held that a homebuyer is entitled to compensation for loss of property appreciation arising from delayed possession, and directed Experion Developers to pay Rs. 26.96 lakh on this account, along with additional compensation and costs.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar observed that residential property prices in Sector 108, Gurugram had witnessed substantial appreciation over the years and assessed compensation on the basis of notional investment growth. He held:
“Residential property in Sector-108 has been a massive appreciation over the long term, with some data suggesting flat prices grew by over 130% in the last 5 years (relative to early 2023). It is presumed that if the amount paid by the complainant ie. Rs.20,73,670/- up to 30.07.2016 (date of payment) was invested in some other similar project, it would have appreciated to Rs.26,95,771/-.”
Case Title: Kunal Vashisht Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. & Others
Case Number: Complaint No. 2804-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 90
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has dismissed a complaint seeking additional compensation for delay in handing over possession of a commercial unit, holding that the allottee had already been granted relief for the delay through an earlier order.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar observed:
“When complainant has already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession."
Karnataka RERA
Karnataka RERA Orders BDA To Refund ₹11.46 Lakh Collected Despite Full Payment Before Cut-Off Date
Case Title : N R Bhadrachalam v. Bangalore Development Authority
Case Number : Complaint No. 00619/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 76
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed the Bangalore Development Authority to refund Rs.11.46 lakh collected from a homebuyer, holding that the amount could not have been demanded once the entire sale consideration had already been paid before the government's cut-off date.
“When the complainant had deposited an entire sale consideration on 28.10.2021 itself much prior to cut-off date 30.11.2021, the respondent could not have demanded/insisted the complainant to pay the said amount of Rs.11,46,267/- (Eleven Lakh Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven only). Hence, the complainant is entitled to get refund of said amount along with interest.”
Karnataka RERA Directs Mantri Developers To Register Flat, Grant Homebuyer Possession Within 60 Days
Case Title: Rita Kantilal Ruparelia v. Mantri Developers Private Limited
Case Number: Complaint No. 001244/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KR) 89
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) on May 5 directed Mantri Developers to execute the registered sale deed in favour of a homebuyer and hand over possession of a flat in accordance with the Agreement for Sale.
A Bench comprising Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy allowed the complaint and held that the developer must complete registration and conveyance without further delay. It observed:
“The purport and object of RERA Act is to develop and promote Real Estate Sector and at the same time to safe guard the interest of purchasers. The Act gives protection to homebuyer and enhanced transparency and Accountability in Real Estate transactions.”
Bihar RERA
Case Title: Mr. Ejaz Shoaib Hussain and Mr. Arbaaz Shoaib v. M/s Honest Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/CC/294/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 85
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a landowner's claim that a builder had shortchanged him in the allocation of flats in the “Hashmi Residency” project in Patna was not sustainable, after finding that he had accepted an alternative flat in another project towards adjustment of his share.
The single bench of Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh said the subsequent agreement signed by the parties reflected their consent to the adjustment of the complainant's share.
“Accordingly, this Bench holds that the claim of the Complainant regarding deficiency in handing over the agreed share is not sustainable, as the Complainant has already received his share in the project as explained in the preceding paragraphs.”
Case Title: Vikrant Vatsa v. M/s Pari Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: RERA/CC/76/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 81
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a Completion Certificate does not free a developer from its obligation to ensure that promised amenities and essential services are actually functional for homebuyers.
Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh said:
"Mere issuance of a Completion Certificate does not absolve the promoter of its statutory obligations to ensure actual and functional provision of promised amenities and services to the allottees. The obligations of the promoter extend beyond structural completion and include ensuring operational readiness of essential services such as drainage, sewage, and common facilities, etc."
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title: Heet Builders Private Limited v. Mrs. Bhharati Kondaji Kanade
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000396625
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 86
he Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held that a homebuyer who objected to the placement of a lavatory in a flat on Vastu-Shastra grounds could not avoid payment obligations under the agreement for sale.
MahaRERA member Ravindra Deshpande was dealing with a complaint filed by Heet Builders Pvt Ltd seeking a declaration that its termination of an agreement for sale executed with homebuyer Bhharati Kondaji Kanade was valid on account of non-payment of the balance consideration amount.
“If the respondent is genuinely aggrieved by the layout of the flat or any facilities attached thereto, she is always at liberty to institute a separate complaint before this Authority in accordance with RERA Act 2016,Such a course of action would ensure that the grievance is examined independently within the statutory framework without conflicting it with the present proceedings which are confined to the issues arising out of the complainant's claim,” the Authority observed.
Provisional Flat Allotment Given As Loan Security Does Not Create Allottee Rights: Maharashtra RERA
Case Title : Naresh Moturam Bhojwani v. Shree Tirupati Greenfield
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000591428
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 84
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held in a case that a provisional flat allotment issued merely as security for a loan did not conclusively establish a promoter-allottee relationship while dismissing a complaint by a man seeking a refund or possession of a flat in Shree Tirupati Greenfield's “Siddheshwar Gardens” project.
Member Ravindra Deshpande said the Provisional Reservation Letter relied upon by complainant Naresh Moturam Bhojwani had to be read in its entirety.
“Once a party signs and accepts a document, such party is presumed to have read, understood and accepted all the terms and conditions contained therein. The Complainant cannot selectively rely only upon those recitals which support allotment of the flat while ignoring the specific recital contained in Clause 6(3) regarding the transaction being security against loan.”, the authority observed.
Telangana RERA
Telangana RERA Holds Sale Agreements Disguised As “Investment Agreements” Cannot Bypass Section 3
Case Title : Narasimhula Upendra v. M/s R Homes & Ors. connected matters
Case Number: Complaint Nos. 177/2025/TGRERA along with connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 87
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 16 May held that developers cannot evade the mandatory registration requirement under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by disguising apartment sale transactions as “investment agreements”.
Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana and Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao directed R Homes, Hyderabad, to refund Rs. 2.43 crore collected from homebuyers in relation to its “Jai Vasavis Bliss Heights” project at Yamnampet Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, along with interest at 10.70% per annum. The Bench observed:
“this Authority deprecates the conduct of the Respondent No.1 in adopting a circuitous and impermissible method by styling the transactions as 'Agreements for Investment' with a view to circumvent the mandatory provisions of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. Such an artifice is a colourable exercise designed to defeat the object and scheme of the statute.”
Telangana RERA Says Buyers Who Paid For Beccun Flats Are Allottees Even Without Sale Agreement
Case Title: Prasenjith Kambde & Ors. v. M/s Beccun Infrastructure Limited
Case Number: Complaint Nos. 261–272/2025/TG RERA
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 77
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that buyers in the delayed “Beccun Life Style” project in Kompally, Hyderabad cannot be denied the status of allottees merely because formal agreements for sale were not executed, where they had paid substantial amounts and were allotted flats.
Rejecting objections raised by Beccun Infrastructure Limited, the Authority held that such buyers are entitled to be treated as allottees and can maintain complaints before it.
Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana and Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu said:
"The Respondent, however, has sought to contend that in the absence of duly executed Agreements of Sale signed by both parties, the Complainants cannot be treated as allottees. This contention cannot be accepted. The issuance of receipts, acknowledgment of payments, and allotment of specific units clearly establish the existence of a transaction and the intention to transfer such units in favour of the Complainants.", it said.
Aditya Capitol Heights Builder Cannot Retroactively Deny Pre-EMI Benefit: Telangana RERA
Case Title : Anuradha Konapala & Anr. v. M/s Aditya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 73 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 79
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that Aditya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. cannot deny homebuyers in its Aditya Capitol Heights project the benefit of a Pre-EMI scheme after incorporating it into the sale agreement and acting on it by making payments.
“Having accepted the Complainants under the scheme, executed the Agreement of Sale incorporating its terms, and made actual Pre-EMI payments thereunder, the Respondent is estopped from now asserting that the Complainants were never eligible for the scheme. The plea of retrospective disqualification raised by the Respondent is accordingly rejected as contrary to law and inconsistent with the Respondent's own conduct.”, the authority held.
Himachal Pradesh RERA
Homebuyers Cannot Occupy Flat, Derive Benefit And Refuse Maintenance Charges: HP RERA
Case Title: Vipin Kumar Singhal & Anr. v. Ahlawat Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Complaint No. HPRERA2025016/C
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 78
Holding that homebuyers who continue to occupy a flat and derive benefits from it cannot completely deny liability towards maintenance charges, the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that allottees in the “Himachal One” project at Baddi must pay reasonable maintenance charges.
The Coram of Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta observed:
“Thus, once the allottee is in possession and is availing services- at least basic in nature- the liability to pay the maintenance cannot be completely denied. In such circumstances, this Authority is of the view that the Complainants cannot take contradictory stands - on one hand enjoying possession of the property and earning benefit from it, and on the other hand denying their liability to pay maintenance charges. A party cannot accept the benefit of a situation and at the same time refuse to fulfill the obligations arising from it.”
Punjab RERA
Case Title Bhupesh Rana & Anr. v. Ambika Realcon Private Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 0018 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 80
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a homebuyer's statutory right to interest for delayed possession cannot be defeated by contractual terms, while rejecting a developer's objections based on arbitration and alleged payment defaults.
A coram of Member Binod Kumar Singh held, "At the outset it is held that the Act provides for payment of interest in case of delay in handing over of possession, and this legal right of an allottee cannot be defeated by the lack of such a provision in any document issued by a promoter.”
The ruling came while allowing a complaint filed by Bhupesh Rana and Ambika Rana against Ambika Realcon Private Limited and directing the developer to pay ₹19,02,904 as delayed possession interest for delayed delivery of a flat in its Florence Park project in New Chandigarh.
Homebuyers Cannot Seek Refund Of Contractually Agreed Super Area Charges: Punjab RERA
Case Title: Megha Chowdhri & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. RERA/GC No. 0445 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 82
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a developer cannot unilaterally charge homebuyers for any increase in carpet area or super area unless such charges are expressly agreed upon in the buyer's agreement.
However, it refused to order refund of super area-based amounts paid by buyers in a case against Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd., after finding that the pricing structure had been clearly disclosed and accepted by the buyers at the time of booking.
Member Arunvir Vashishta, who decided the matter, held, “But definitely in the opinion of this bench nothing can be charged for an unilateral increase either in the carpet area or in super area if so has not been agreed upon by the parties in the buyer's agreement hat has to be ofcourse in the form as prescribed in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Act. RERA rules, 2017.”
Uttar Pradesh RERA
UP RERA Says Complaints Against Unregistered Projects To Be Heard After Deciding If Registration Was Required
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has clarified that complaints by homebuyers in unregistered housing projects will be taken up on merits only after the authority first determines whether the project was required to be registered under the RERA framework.
In an office order dated April 10, issued under Regulation 38 of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019, the authority operationalised amendments introduced last month to its adjudication framework for complaints involving unregistered projects.
The clarification follows UP RERA's 10th amendment to the 2019 regulations, which inserted clauses 24(e), 24(f), and 24(g) dealing with adjudication of complaints concerning unregistered projects.
Under the revised framework, if a homebuyer files a complaint against an unregistered project, the hearing Bench must first decide whether registration of that project was legally required under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Assam RERA
Case Title: Shri Mani Pranjal Saikia v. M/s Aradhya Builders and Developers
Case Number : RERA/ASSAM/COM/2025/02
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(AS) 83
The Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) recently declined to immediately direct execution of a sale deed in a homebuyer dispute, holding that WhatsApp chats, loan approval documents, and EMI records were not enough to establish full and final payment for a flat without proper receipts or authenticated bank statements.
Chairman Paban Kr. Borthakur observed, "However, upon careful consideration, it is observed that the material produced by the complainant does not present a clear and cogent account of the payments allegedly made. The WhatsApp communications, though voluminous, do not conclusively establish the amounts paid on specific dates and, instead, create ambiguity in the absence of a structured and verifiable statement of payments."
Tamil Nadu RERA
RERA Act Contains No Provision To Appoint Receiver For Sale Of Unsold Flats: Tamil Nadu RERA
Case Title: Tvl. G. Sathya & 110 Others v. Ozone Projects Private Limited
Case Number: I.A. No. 50 of 2022 in C. Nos. 3 to 27, 37 to 60, 70 to 96, 103 to 127, 146 to 152, 201 & 268 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 91
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has dismissed an application filed by more than 100 homebuyers of Ozone Projects Private Limited's "Metrozone" project seeking appointment of a receiver to effectuate the sale of unsold flats.
The Authority, however, directed the developer to file a status report on construction in Phase IV, an encumbrance certificate for the unsold inventory and an updated quarterly progress report.
The order was passed on May 25 by a coram comprising Chairperson Thiru Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy while dealing with an interlocutory application filed by Tvl. G. Sathya and 110 others in a batch of pending complaints concerning the project.
“Upon perusal of the documents and hearing both the parties, the Authority finds no provision under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to appoint a receiver to address the relief sought in the interlocutory application.”,the authority ruled.